An Approach to Assess Engineering Change Effort Retrospectively Utilizing Past Engineering Change Information

  • Niklas KattnerEmail author
  • Eldar Shakirov
  • Udo Lindemann
Conference paper
Part of the IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology book series (IFIPAICT, volume 565)


The competitiveness of companies is nowadays highly dependent on an efficient product development. Shorter time to market, increased competition as well as accelerated market dynamics can be handled well by a continuous improvement in development efficiency. Hence, improving the development performance can have a big impact on the time to market. However, an increasing number of resources must be assigned to the management of engineering changes. The management of changes strongly influences the resources available for the actual design process. Furthermore, the increasing complexity of technical systems as well as the organization affects the engineering change situation and further induces change complexity. This paper therefore introduces an approach to retrospectively assess engineering change information to identify areas for reducing the change workload. It therefore introduces a procedure to guide users through the process of the assessment. In addition, it suggests indicators to evaluate the change situation regarding the induced workload. Finally, the approach is applied in a use case to investigate an engineering change data set.


Engineering change management Structural complexity management Engineering change assessment 



This work was supported by the German Research Foundation (Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, DFG) collaborative research centre ‘Sonderforschungsbereich SFB 768 “Managing cycles in innovation processes – Integrated development of product-service-systems based on technical products”. Furthermore, we thank the Soley GmbH for providing the data analytics tool.


  1. 1.
    Fricke, E., Schulz, A.P.: Design for changeability (DfC): principles to enable changes in systems throughout their entire lifecycle. Syst. Eng. 8(4), 342–359 (2005)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Clark, K.B., Fujimoto, T.: Product Development Performance. Strategy, Organization, and Management in the World Auto Industry. Harvard Business School Press, Boston (1991)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hamraz, B., Caldwell, N.H.M., Clarkson, P.J.: A holistic categorization framework for literature on engineering change management. Syst. Eng. 16(4), 473–505 (2013). Scholar
  4. 4.
    Jarratt, T.A.W., Eckert, C.M., Caldwell, N.H.M., Clarkson, P.J.: Engineering change: an overview and perspective on the literature. Res. Eng. Des. 22(2), 103–124 (2011). Scholar
  5. 5.
    Lindemann, U., Reichwald, R. (eds.): Integriertes Änderungsmanagement. Springer, Heidelberg (1998). Scholar
  6. 6.
    Fricke, E., Gebhard, B., Negele, H., Igenbergs, E.: Coping with changes. causes, findings, and strategies. Syst. Eng. 3(4), 169–179 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Maier, A., Langer, S.: Engineering change management report 2011. Survey results on causes and effects, current practice, problems, and strategies in Denmark (no. 17), Technical University of Denmark, DTU (2011)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Blessing, L.T.M., Chakrabarti, A.: DRM, a Design Research Methodology. Springer, London (2009). Scholar
  9. 9.
    Tale-Yazdi, A., Kattner, N., Becerril, L., Lindemann, U.: A literature review on approaches for the retrospective utilisation of data in engineering change management. In: 2018 IEEE International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management (IEEM), pp. 612–616. IEEE (2018)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kattner, N., Wang, T., Lindemann, U.: Performance metrics in engineering change management - Key Performance Indicators and engineering change performance levels. In: 2016 International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management, IEEM 2016, 4–7 December 2016, Bali, Indonesia, pp. 1180–1184. IEEE, Piscataway (2016)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Maurer, M.S., Lindemann, U.: Structural awareness in complex product design - the multiple-domain matrix. In: 9th International Design Structure Matrix Conference (2007)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    VDA, 4965 (08/2009). ECM Recommendation Part 0 (ECM)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Biedermann, W.: A minimal set of network metrics for analysing mechatronic product concepts. Dissertation, Technische Universität München, München (2014)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Heimberger, N.: Strukturbasierte Koordinationsplanung in komplexen Entwicklungsprojekten. Ph.D. thesis. Munich, Germany: Chair of Product Development, Technical University of Munich (TUM) (2017)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Technical University of MunichMunichGermany
  2. 2.Skolkovo Institute of Science and Technology (Skoltech)MoscowRussia

Personalised recommendations